Building a Global Employer Brand

Transcription

1 BUILDING A GLOBAL EMPLOYER BRAND 1 Building a Global Employer Brand INSIGHTS FROM THE WORLD S MOST ATTRACTIVE EMPLOYER SURVEY 2014

2 BUILDING A GLOBAL EMPLOYER BRAND 2 For many firms that span the globe, multiple markets, or even just several regions within a country, attracting the unique workforces at each company location can be a major determinant of their growth. TO SUCCEED AT THIS, ORGANIZATIONS NEED TO BE STRATEGIC AND INTENTIONAL IN APPROACHING GLOBAL DIVERSITY. WHAT MAKES EMPLOYERS ATTRACTIVE TO PROSPECTIVE TALENT IN A FOREIGN MARKET? TO WHAT EXTENT DO GLOBAL ORGANIZATIONS NEED TO LOCALIZE THEIR EMPLOYER BRANDS? WHERE CAN FIRMS FIND OPPORTUNITIES TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SIMILARITIES, AND WHEN IS IT CRUCIAL FOR THEM TO DIFFERENTIATE?

3 BUILDING A GLOBAL EMPLOYER BRAND 3 THIS IS WHERE DATA-DRIVEN EMPLOYER BRANDING COMES IN. Universum surveyed students about career motivations and workplace preferences in more than 30 countries in 2014, including the 12 countries with the largest gross domestic products (GDPs). Based on these data and our own expertise, we are helping employers attract their target talent and evolve with a diverse world. This paper looks beyond the World s Most Attractive Employer rankings and examines the broader preferences stated by the survey respondents in the G12 countries which aspects of employers and jobs they find the most appealing, which they do not find particularly important or attractive, and how they most commonly learn about employers and jobs. Since the data represent students from across the world, particular attention is paid to differences and similarities across countries. OUR ANALYSIS OF THE DATA LED US TO FOUR KEY CONCLUSIONS: 1. The preferences of students in 3. The firms that will attract the best Western countries tend to be talent in the coming years will relatively similar to each other, be learning organizations, where while the preferences of students in professional development, training, Asia and Russia tend to vary more and mentoring are baked in to the widely. Accordingly, firms seeking to company s culture. attract talent across the globe need to customize their employer value 4. Students world-wide have come propositions more heavily in Asia to expect creative, dynamic work and Russia. environments where ideas are traded freely amongst colleagues. 2. The means by which students Firms that have these environments learn about potential employers not look alike dynamism, but vary widely by market. Social the real thing clearly have an media has taken off in some advantage in attracting talent. countries, but not others, and Those that don t will need to either students use in-person channels adapt their cultures, or make the such as informational interviews case for why prospective recruits to greater or lesser degrees across should choose them despite not countries. Just as knowing how possessing this core attractor. preferences vary can help employers tailor their messages, knowing how channel usage varies can help determine a strategy for delivering those messages.

4 BUILDING A GLOBAL EMPLOYER BRAND 4 Similarities and differences in student preferences across markets

5 BUILDING A GLOBAL EMPLOYER BRAND 5 The Universum Student Survey asks students to state their preferences for employer attributes via a two-level framework. At the highest level are four key drivers of employer attractiveness: the employer s Reputation & Image, its Job Characteristics, its People & Culture, and finally its Remuneration & Advancement Opportunities. We ask survey respondents to divide 100 points among these four drivers. This gives us a view of the overall importance of each driver. FIGURE 1 shows the average importance allocated to each driver by business students in each of the G12 countries, with a global average that s weighted by the GDPs of the respective countries. FIGURE 2 displays the equivalent data for engineering students. Students in developing countries place higher emphasis on Remuneration & Advancement Across the G12 countries, respondents in both business and engineering allocated the most importance to Remuneration & Advancement. The global averages are skewed, however, by the high importance placed on this driver by students in China, Japan, India, and Russia. Looking at the data for business students, for example, Remuneration & Advancement is less important to respondents in the USA and Australia than the People & Culture of the organization, and it s less important to Italian, French, and British respondents than the Job Characteristics. Similarly, engineering students in seven of the 12 markets placed more importance on the Job Characteristics, with only the Asian, Russian, and Brazilian students finding Remuneration the most important. This pattern becomes clearer when comparing the level of importance placed by respondents on Remuneration & Advancement with the per-capita GDPs of the countries. FIGURE 3 shows the relationship for the business respondents, and FIGURE 4 shows the relationship for the engineering respondents. While there are outliers on the plots, the general relationship is that students in still-developing nations are more focused on this driver than those in developed nations. (The slopes of the regression lines on the graphs are statistically significant at the 10% level.) Firms that attempt to attract talent globally, then, should differentiate their employer value propositions in developing markets, placing higher emphasis on career advancement opportunities and the pecuniary benefits of working for them. To be paid in yen or rupees: differences in what types of remuneration are preferred To what degree, though, should this tailoring be localized to individual markets? For example, do the types of Remuneration & Advancement Opportunities that appeal to the

6 BUILDING A GLOBAL EMPLOYER BRAND 6 typical Indian engineering student also appeal to her Chinese counterpart? To answer that question, we look to the second level of Universum s employer attractiveness framework. This consists of ten attributes within each of the four drivers, for a total of 40 attributes. (See Appendix A for a full listing of the 40 attributes.) Within each driver, we ask survey respondents to choose three attributes that they consider most important. We then weight the percentage of respondents choosing each attribute as important by the overall importance assigned to the umbrella driver in the previouslydescribed 100 points exercise. The results give us a fine-grained understanding of which aspects of Remuneration & Advancement Opportunities are most important to students. TABLE 1 shows the results from business respondents in the four non-western countries we examined. (The results for engineering respondents, not shown here, were similar.) Notably, high future earnings was among the top preferences across all the markets, except China, where it was subordinate to the base salary and three softer career advancement aspects. Indian students prioritize high future earnings together with rapid promotion and leadership opportunities. Russian students, by contrast, are far more concerned with financial benefits like base and future earnings, as well as opportunities to earn a performance-related bonus. What seems like a great opportunity to a management trainee in Mumbai may be perceived as insufficiently lucrative in Moscow. For some organizations, it will make the most sense to simply tweak which aspects of the employer value proposition are emphasized in each market. For instance, a global organization s recruiters might prepare to talk more about the resume-building aspects of their rotational programs in India and Japan, and more about base compensation in Russia and China. In other cases, however, it may be necessary to adapt to local preferences by altering recruiting programs, or even re-structuring the way employees in a market are compensated. For example, firms that don t have rotational programs are probably at a disadvantage in India, and may consider creating one just for that market. Likewise, bonuses specifically for the Russian market may help a firm become competitive there.

7 BUILDING A GLOBAL EMPLOYER BRAND 7 Looking beyond remuneration: a general metric for the required degree of localization of an employer brand These differences and similarities in student preferences go beyond financial and career advancement opportunities, of course. Looking across all 40 attributes, it is possible to compare the importance placed on each attribute by survey respondents in one country with that of their counterparts in another country. For example, each point on FIGURE 5 corresponds to one of the 40 attributes; the horizontal axis indicates the importance placed on them by business respondents in Australia, while the vertical axis indicates the importance to their Canadian counterparts. Not surprisingly, given their shared cultural heritage and level of economic development, these students have a lot in common they agree about what s important, as evidenced by the linear relationship. By comparison, FIGURE 6 shows the equivalent, but much looser, relationship for attribute importance between Australian and Japanese business students. Across the G12 countries, there are 66 two-way pairings of countries. While making visual comparisons of 66 scatter plots would be cumbersome and overwhelming, we can boil each of those relationships down to a single metric. The square of the Pearson correlation coefficient (R-squared) for each country pair can be interpreted as how much of the variation in importance across the 40 attributes in Country A can be explained by their importance in Country B. This does not offer any insight into how the preferences differ, but it does give an at-a-glance metric of the extent of the differences and the relative amount of brand localization required to resolve them. TABLE 2 gives the R-squared metrics for each of the 66 pairs across the G12, based on the responses from business respondents. A simple way to approach the table is to think that, if an employer value proposition is 100% optimized for Australia, then it is probably around 80% optimized for Canada, but only 20% of the way there in Japan. In general, the table shows that the United Kingdom, USA, Canada, and Australia share a great deal in common. Germany, France, and Italy have a middling degree of commonality with each other, and in many cases share more in common with the United Kingdom or its former colonies than they do with each other. The Asian countries and Russia, however, tend to share very little in common with the Western nations, and not a great deal in common with each other. Understanding differences in students preferences across markets, then, can help employers tailor their messaging and make them more attractive globally. Localizing the employer value proposition, however, is only half of the story. Firms also need to localize the channels they use to communicate.

8 BUILDING A GLOBAL EMPLOYER BRAND 8 FIGURE 1 OVERALL IMPORTANCE OF EMPLOYER ATTRIBUTE CATEGORIES Australia 21.6% Brazil 22.5% 25.7% 25.0% 26.5% 26.2% 25.5% 27.0% Business undergraduates, G12 countries, 2014 RETURN Canada China France 21.0% 22.2% 19.8% 25.5% 24.2% 27.5% 26.4% 23.8% 26.0% 27.1% 29.8% 26.8% Germany India 18.8% 23.1% 27.6% 24.9% 25.3% 21.8% 28.4% 30.3% Italy Japan Russia 20.4% 21.2% 20.0% 26.9% 25.2% 24.8% 22.6% 23.1% 26.1% 30.5% 32.5% 26.6% UK US 23.6% 26.1% 24.8% 25.5% 21.8% 25.1% 26.6% 26.5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Employer reputation & image Job characteristics People & culture Remuneration & Advancement Opportunities

9 BUILDING A GLOBAL EMPLOYER BRAND 9 FIGURE 2 OVERALL IMPORTANCE OF EMPLOYER ATTRIBUTE CATEGORIES Australia 21.0% Brazil 22.1% 28.6% 26.3% 27.0% 23.5% 24.6% 27.0% Engineering and IT undergraduates, G12 countries, 2014 RETURN Canada China France 20.5% 22.3% 18.8% 27.9% 24.4% 28.1% 25.4% 23.4% 27.4% 26.2% 29.9% 25.8% Germany India 18.4% 22.9% 28.3% 25.4% 25.1% 22.8% 28.1% 29.0% Italy Japan Russia 20.4% 21.0% 19.8% 24.6% 27.1% 26.3% 22.3% 25.9% 23.1% 33.2% 26.6% 29.5% UK US 23.6% 26.8% 24.8% 24.8% 20.8% 27.4% 25.4% 26.5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Employer reputation & image Job characteristics People & culture Remuneration & Advancement Opportunities

10 BUILDING A GLOBAL EMPLOYER BRAND 10 FIGURE 3 GDP PER CAPITA VS. % IMPORTANCE ON REMUNERATION & ADVANCEMENT Business students RETURN % IMPORTANCE ALLOCATED TO REMUNERATION & ADVANCEMENT 34% 32% 30% 28% 26% 24% INDIA CHINA BRAZIL RUSSIA ITALY JAPAN GERMANY CANADA FRANCE AUSTRALIA UK US 22% $0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000% $60,000 GDP IN 2013 (PER CAPITA)

11 BUILDING A GLOBAL EMPLOYER BRAND 11 FIGURE 4 GDP PER CAPITA VS. % IMPORTANCE ON REMUNERATION & ADVANCEMENT 34% RUSSIA Engineering students RETURN % IMPORTANCE ALLOCATED TO REMUNERATION & ADVANCEMENT 32% 30% 28% 26% 24% INDIA CHINA BRAZIL ITALY JAPAN GERMANY CANADA FRANCE UK US 22% AUSTRALIA $0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000% $60,000 GDP IN 2013 (PER CAPITA)

12 BUILDING A GLOBAL EMPLOYER BRAND 12 TABLE 1 WEIGHTED PERCENTAGE OF BUSINESS RESPONDENTS SELECTING REMUNERATION & ADVANCEMENT ASPECTS AS IMPORTANT TO THEM, SELECT COUNTRIES, 2014 RETURN CHINA INDIA JAPAN RUSSIA G12 AVERAGE* High future earnings 39.6% 44.4% 45.5% 68.4% 47.2% Good reference for future career Leadership opportunities Clear path for advancement Competitive base salary Competitive benefits Sponsorship of future education Rapid promotion Performance-related bonus Overtime pay/compensation *G12 averages include eight Western countries not shown on table. Averages are weighted by the GDPs of the individual countries.

13 BUILDING A GLOBAL EMPLOYER BRAND 13 FIGURE 5 IMPORTANCE PLACED BY BUSINESS STUDENTS ON 40 EMPLOYER ATTRIBUTES 60.0 Australia and Canada RETURN IMPORTANCE IN CANADA IMPORTANCE IN AUSTRALIA Employer reputation & image Job characteristics People & culture Remuneration & Advancement

14 BUILDING A GLOBAL EMPLOYER BRAND 14 FIGURE 6 IMPORTANCE PLACED BY BUSINESS STUDENTS ON 40 EMPLOYER ATTRIBUTES 60.0 Australia and Japan RETURN IMPORTANCE IN JAPAN IMPORTANCE IN AUSTRALIA Employer reputation & image Job characteristics People & culture Remuneration & Advancement

15 BUILDING A GLOBAL EMPLOYER BRAND 15 TABLE 2 RELATIVE EXTENT TO WHICH BUSINESS STUDENTS SHARE ACROSS G12 MARKETS (R-SQUARED METRICS) RETURN AUST BRAZIL CANADA CHINA FRANCE GERMANY INDIA ITALY JAPAN RUSSIA UK US AUST 100% BRAZIL 57% 100% CANADA 80% 49% 100% CHINA 25% 40% 43% 100% FRANCE 49% 26% 62% 31% 100% GERMANY 55% 29% 70% 40% 63% 100% INDIA 28% 32% 38% 46% 30% 24% 100% ITALY 59% 63% 61% 35% 49% 47% 22% 100% JAPAN 20% 25% 41% 47% 28% 40% 49% 34% 100% RUSSIA 25% 24% 42% 39% 24% 39% 47% 29% 43% 100% UK 74% 57% 84% 37% 71% 58% 34% 67% 28% 35% 100% US 77% 49% 92% 36% 49% 62% 28% 59% 33% 33% 79% 100%

16 BUILDING A GLOBAL EMPLOYER BRAND 16 Getting the word out: communication channel usage across markets

17 BUILDING A GLOBAL EMPLOYER BRAND 17 In addition to asking respondents to the Universum Student Survey about their preferences, we also ask which communication channels they use to look for information about employers. Across the G12 markets, the average student uses between seven and eight channels for this purpose, with the average engineer using slightly fewer sources of information than the average business student (see FIGURE 7). Notably, Chinese students tend to get their information from fewer channels than the G12 average the typical Chinese business student employs only 4.7 channels, while the average Chinese engineering student uses 5.6. In fact, they are less likely than their peers in other countries to use any of the 27 channels we ask about on the survey. They are especially less likely than students in other markets to use employer websites or social media, two of the most common channels globally. (See TABLE 3 for the percentages of business respondents in each country using the specific channels discussed here.) This communications gap in China stems from a combination of factors. Relatively low access the internet and social media, coupled with a still-nascent understanding of employer branding strategies and recruiting tactics on the part of both students and employers, have left students less likely to learn about employers online. In the meantime, the sheer size of the country makes it difficult for employers to fill this gap through in-person communications such as on-campus presentations. (Russia appears to be a similar in both regards, though the effect is less pronounced.) On the other end of the spectrum, Indian students learn about employers through almost twice as many channels as their G12 peers 13.2 for business students, and 12.9 for engineers. They are twice as likely to report having conducted an informational interview, and

18 BUILDING A GLOBAL EMPLOYER BRAND 18 almost twice as likely to say they attended an employer presentation. However, it is not just in-person channels they use more. They are more likely to use online means as well. Dialog expected: social media usage to learn about employers Indian students are highly active on social media: a greater proportion of them than the respondents in any other G12 nation tell us that they ve used social networks / communities or professional networks / communities to learn about employers. Other countries that appear to be leading the way on adoption of social media for recruiting include Australia, Canada, and Brazil. By contrast, France, Japan, and China have relatively low adoption levels. Building an effective recruiting presence on social media requires a great deal of persistence and active engagement. Students expect these channels to be used for dialogs with employers, not as alternative ways of reading content that s already on the employers web sites. Understanding which target markets have high adoption rates can help firms make sound decisions about where to concentrate their resources, allowing them to build presences that will reach, and resonate with, a wide range of potential recruits.

19 BUILDING A GLOBAL EMPLOYER BRAND 19 FIGURE 7 AVERAGE NUMBER OF CHANNELS USED TO LEARN ABOUT EMPLOYERS G12 markets, 2013 RETURN Australia Brazil Canada China France Germany India Italy Japan Russia UK US Business Engineering

20 BUILDING A GLOBAL EMPLOYER BRAND 20 TABLE 3 PERCENTAGE OF BUSINESS RESPONDENTS USING SELECTED CHANNELS TO LEARN ABOUT EMPLOYERS, G12 MARKETS, RETURN EMPLOYER WEBSITES CAREER FAIRS SOCIAL NETWORKS/ COMMUNITIES EMPLOYER PRESENTATIONS ON CAMPUS PROFESSIONAL NETWORKS/ COMMUNITIES JOB BOARDS CAREER GUIDANCE WEBSITES INFORMATIONAL INTERVIEWS LIVE WEBINARS WITH EMPLOYERS AUSTRALIA 60% 40% 54% 26% 37% 35% 35% 15% 9% BRAZIL 40% 21% 49% 26% 35% 21% 33% 16% 10% CANADA 65% 56% 47% 47% 37% 46% 32% 33% 10% CHINA 24% 34% 17% 29% 15% 28% 20% 17% 9% FRANCE 78% 42% 36% 38% 39% 41% 25% 11% 5% GERMANY 67% 49% 44% 34% 44% 52% 44% 19% 9% INDIA 69% 54% 55% 61% 55% 47% 53% 45% 38% ITALY 55% 27% 43% 26% 25% 35% 36% 16% 6% JAPAN 67% 31% 24% 34% 20% 17% 27% 14% 16% RUSSIA 45% 28% 40% 27% 32% 20% 22% 17% 8% UK 67% 55% 49% 37% 37% 31% 44% 17% 10% US 63% 60% 48% 45% 43% 34% 34% 23% 9% G12 AVERAGE* *G12 average is GDP-weighted average of the 12 countries shown.

21 BUILDING A GLOBAL EMPLOYER BRAND 21 The learning organization: satisfying recruits desire to develop professionally

22 BUILDING A GLOBAL EMPLOYER BRAND 22 Up until this point, we ve focused on differences that require firms to localize their employer brands and their recruitment communications. But how are students preferences similar across markets? Can there be such a thing as a globally appealing employer value proposition? Regardless of their location, field of study, or preferred industry, students consistently tell us that they want to continue learning after graduation. They want to join organizations that will train them, foster their professional development, and set them on a path along which they can grow their careers. Professional training and development, leadership opportunities, and leaders who support my development are among the most preferred attributes across the G12 markets (see TABLE 4). While these attributes have long been among students favorites, they have gained even more importance over the last three years (see FIGURE 8 ). Employers that can credibly offer training, mentoring, and professional development as part of the core experience for their entry-level employees will have a strong advantage in attracting the next generation of talent. Notably, sponsorship of future education is trending in the opposite direction, with students finding it less important than they did previously. Indeed, tuition reimbursement benefits are a very low priority for students. This may indicate that, as employers become less likely to offer this benefit, students expectations have diminished. But it may also indicate that students expect to grow into their career roles through on-thejob training and mentoring. In certain markets particularly France and the United Kingdom opportunities for international travel or temporary relocation are seen as highly attractive, and part of the standard career path for would-be managers. (In India and Brazil, on the other hand, these opportunities

23 BUILDING A GLOBAL EMPLOYER BRAND 23 are highly desired by students, but rarely given.) Multinational organizations that want to recruit in those markets can satisfy those ambitions by setting up rotations to other offices as part of their training and development programs. The breadth of attributes related to training and development points to the fact that firms have many levers they can adjust in building a program. Organizations that want to build such programs need to decide which skills are to be taught and fostered, whether employee rotations are involved, the roles of managers and other employees as coaches and mentors. These choices are usually made with a view toward the firm s talent needs which skills are needed and which positions need to be filled or retained. Those objectives are, of course, valid. What our survey data reveal, however, is that program design also affects the firm s competitiveness in recruiting. Developing a world-class training course for analysts doesn t just ensure that one s analysts are well-trained; it also makes it easier to recruit them in the first place.

24 BUILDING A GLOBAL EMPLOYER BRAND 24 TABLE 4 IMPORTANCE OF ATTRIBUTES RELATED TO TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT, G12 MARKETS, 2014 RETURN AUSTRALIA BRAZIL CANADA PROFESSIONAL TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT LEADERS WHO SUPPORT MY DEVELOPMENT LEADERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES OPPORTUNITIES FOR INTL. TRAVEL/ RELOCATION SPONSORSHIP OF FUTURE EDUCATION CHINA FRANCE GERMANY INDIA ITALY JAPAN RUSSIA UK US Color-coding indicates that the attribute is among the most highly preferred of the 40 attributes for Business Engineering Both

25 BUILDING A GLOBAL EMPLOYER BRAND 25 FIGURE 8 CHANGE IN IMPORTANCE OF SELECTED EMPLOYER ATTRIBUTES Opportunities for international travel/relocation G12 GDP-weighted averages, 2014 vs (Positive numbers / to the right indicates increasing importance over time) RETURN Leaders who will support my development Professional training and development Sponsorship of future education Clear path for advancement Leadership opportunities 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% Engineering Business

26 BUILDING A GLOBAL EMPLOYER BRAND 26 The new work environment: expectations outstripping reality

27 BUILDING A GLOBAL EMPLOYER BRAND 27 Beyond the almost-universal desire for training and development, the other major commonality in students preferences is the desire for a new kind of workplace. The bar has been set by Google, Facebook, and other innovative firms for what we call on the Universum Student Survey a creative and dynamic workplace. The pattern for these company cultures was cut in Silicon Valley, but business and engineering recruits alike now desire them, across the globe. Among engineers across the G12 markets, this is now the single most important of the 40 employer attributes. It s their number one preference in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and it s in their top ten preferences for almost every other G12 market. (The exception is Russia, where engineers highly value a friendly work environment, but place creativity and dynamism much further down their list of priorities.) To a lesser extent, business students are also keen on creative and dynamic environments it s the fourth-most important attribute for them across the G12 markets. Compared to engineers, however, there is much greater variation from country to country in just how important it is. What is clear, however, is that the expectation that work environments will facilitate the exchange of ideas and rapid decision-making is not limited to students who plan to work in the technology sector. While this expectation has become widespread, however, students see lots of room for improvement on what employers actually deliver. Among the data we collect on the Universum Student Survey are respondents indications of whether they believe a company to have this type of work environment. Of the 72 multinational organizations included in the World s Most Attractive Employers rankings for engineering, the average level of association with this attribute was only 55%. (The level of association is based on the percentage of engineering respondents in each of the 12 countries who said they

28 BUILDING A GLOBAL EMPLOYER BRAND 28 believe that a given firm has this type of work environment.) Only two of the companies were more than 70% associated with creative environments, and only 14 more were more than 60% associated. Indeed, there s a great deal of variation by industry in how students perceive firms work environments. FIGURE 9 shows the range of associations by engineering respondents by industry. (As guideposts for reading the plot, the least-associated firm was a bank that was 39% associated with this trait, while the most-associated was a software firm that was 80% associated.) As can be seen on the plot, most industries have a wide range of association levels. The only industry where every company is above the 55% average is heavy industry. Similarly, the only completely belowaverage industry is banking. While many companies are making strides at making their work environments more open, there are entire industries where every firm could stand to improve.

29 BUILDING A GLOBAL EMPLOYER BRAND 29 FIGURE 9 VARIETY OF ENGINEERING STUDENTS APPRAISALS OF WHETHER COMPANIES HAVE CREATIVE AND DYNAMIC WORK ENVIRONMENTS Bars show range from least-associated company in industry to the most-associated company RETURN % OF ENGINEERING STUDENTS ASSOCIATING 90% 75% 60% 45% 0 Automotive Banking & Financial Services Computers, Software, and Electronics Consumer Goods & Retail Energy Heavy Industry Pharma & Biotech Professional Services INDUSTRY

30 BUILDING A GLOBAL EMPLOYER BRAND 30 A final word of caution

31 BUILDING A GLOBAL EMPLOYER BRAND 31 This paper was intended as an exploration of high-level trends in the data that were used to construct the World s Most Attractive Employer rankings. We hope that these findings help inform firms talent attraction and retention strategies, as well as the employer branding efforts that support those strategies. That said, as a final word of caution, these findings are solely based on broad populations of students in the 12 countries examined. Employers seeking to recruit in other countries, or even within a smaller region within one of the countries discussed, should keep in mind that student preferences and goals are often influenced by local conditions that may not be apparent at first. The first step in any employer branding effort should be to understand the market and the brand, and successful firms are cautious about assuming too much about how transferable findings are from one geography to another.

32 BUILDING A GLOBAL EMPLOYER BRAND 32 Appendix A: The Universum Drivers of Employer Attractiveness EMPLOYER REPUTATION & IMAGE The attributes of the employer as an organisation Attractive/exciting products and services Corporate Social Responsibility Environmental sustainability Ethical standards Fast-growing/entrepreneurial Financial strength Innovation Inspiring management Market success Prestige EXTRINSIC SOFT PEOPLE & CULTURE The social environment and attributes of the workplace A creative and dynamic work environment A friendly work environment Acceptance towards minorities Enabling me to integrate personal interests in my schedule Interaction with international clients and colleagues Leaders who will support my development Recognising performance (meritocracy) Recruiting only the best talent Respect for its people Support for gender equality INTRINSIC REMUNERATION & ADVANCEMENT OPPORTUNITIES The monetary compensation and other benefits, now and in the future Clear path for advancement Competitive base salary Competitive benefits Good reference for future career High future earnings Leadership opportunities Overtime pay/compensation Performance-related bonus Rapid promotion Sponsorship of future education HARD JOB CHARACTERISTICS The contents and demands of the job, including the learning opportunities provided by the job Challenging work Client interaction Control over my number of working hours Flexible working conditions High level of responsibility Opportunities for international travel/relocation Professional training and development Secure employment Team-oriented work Variety of assignments

33 BUILDING A GLOBAL EMPLOYER BRAND 33